Ref on illegal contact: "It's an offensive game."

SB39 said:

So is letting a guy get raped on his way downfield and the refs not throwing the flag - or, as we all know, throwing it and picking it up.

Click to expand...

Single instances aside, I believe the average score in the NFL was it's HIGHEST ever last year. Most offenses didn't have any trouble fighting through it and scoring plenty of points.

Also, who said that without this emphasis they were going to go full opposite? You can still call the blatant stuff that impacts the route, but what I saw Browner called for in the preseason game was over the top.

you know what I find most interesting in that article.....the first time they decided to "enforce the rule" was after the patriots shallacked Mannings colts in the AFCCG..then manning went on to have his I think 48 touchdown year

and now the 2nd time is after the seahawks shallacked mannings broncos in the superbowl...

anyone see a common denominator here? Manning cant win, so lets change the rules.

Anything that gives the officials more say in the outcome of the game at the expense of the players is bad for football.

Zeus said:

Anything that gives the officials more say in the outcome of the game at the expense of the players is bad for football.

Click to expand...

Precisely!
It boggles the mind as to what positive gain will come from increasing the % of plays affected by subjective instantaneous judgement calls.

The amount of whining in this forum is hilarious. If memory serves, we did quite well the last time a similar rules emphasis was emphasized.

I think I'm one of the only ones in here with the faith that the best secondaries in the league will still be the best secondaries in the league.

I watched a little of the Jags/Bears game last night and couldn't believe how many flags were thrown. I sure hope this isn't a precursor to the regular season.

Once games begin to last 3.5 - 4 hours because of all these flags, then you'll see pushback. But I think teams are averaging around 10 penalties a piece so far this preseason (and those are the accepted ones)

SB39 said:

The amount of whining in this forum is hilarious. If memory serves, we did quite well the last time a similar rules emphasis was emphasized.

I think I'm one of the only ones in here with the faith that the best secondaries in the league will still be the best secondaries in the league.

Click to expand...

I continue to be disappoint6ed by the obtuse rump swab worship of a competition (sic) committee whose edicts irrationally increase the amount of subjectivity imposed on the refs whose decisions must be made nearly instantaneously without reflection or appeal despite the existence of technological means to overturn egregious human errors.

Some of those holding penalties on the Bears last night were ludicrous.

SB39 said:

The amount of whining in this forum is hilarious. If memory serves, we did quite well the last time a similar rules emphasis was emphasized.

I think I'm one of the only ones in here with the faith that the best secondaries in the league will still be the best secondaries in the league.

Click to expand...

If memory serves, we did much better before a similar rules emphasis was emphasized.

BSR said:

If memory serves, we did much better before a similar rules emphasis was emphasized.

Click to expand...

Your memory apparently doesn't serve you as well as mine does me. The year before the last coverage rules emphasis, we went 14-2 and won the Super Bowl. The year after the last coverage rules emphasis, we went 14-2 and won the Super Bowl.

I'm not really seeing how 14-2 and winning the Super Bowl is much better than 14-2 and winning the Super Bowl.

PatsWickedPissah said:

I continue to be disappoint6ed by the obtuse rump swab worship of a competition (sic) committee whose edicts irrationally increase the amount of subjectivity imposed on the refs whose decisions must be made nearly instantaneously without reflection or appeal despite the existence of technological means to overturn egregious human errors.

Click to expand...

SB39 said:

Your memory apparently doesn't serve you as well as mine does me. The year before the last coverage rules emphasis, we went 14-2 and won the Super Bowl. The year after the last coverage rules emphasis, we went 14-2 and won the Super Bowl.

I'm not really seeing how 14-2 and winning the Super Bowl is much better than 14-2 and winning the Super Bowl.

Click to expand...

Two years after the rules were implemented, the Patriots got a faceguarding call (that didn't exist) that went a long way toward costing them another appearance and likely title while the other team was mugging our WR's. And yes, his memory does serve better, unless you're prepared to argue that one > two.

KontradictioN said:

Two years after the rules were implemented, the Patriots got a faceguarding call (that didn't exist) that went a long way toward costing them another appearance and likely title while the other team was mugging our WR's. And yes, his memory does serve better, unless you're prepared to argue that one > two.

Click to expand...

A bad call is a bad call. That was PI not illegal contact, which was the emphasis.
There is no way that 2005 team was winning a SB even if they got by Denver, which would have needed much more than that call not being made.

PP2 said:

I watched a little of the Jags/Bears game last night and couldn't believe how many flags were thrown. I sure hope this isn't a precursor to the regular season.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they are over-emphasizing it in the preseason to send a message, and will back off when the games are real.

AndyJohnson said:

A bad call is a bad call. That was PI not illegal contact, which was the emphasis.
There is no way that 2005 team was winning a SB even if they got by Denver, which would have needed much more than that call not being made.

Click to expand...

I believe that Kontra's referring to the 2006 AFCC game.

KontradictioN said:

Two years after the rules were implemented, the Patriots got a faceguarding call (that didn't exist) that went a long way toward costing them another appearance and likely title while the other team was mugging our WR's. And yes, his memory does serve better, unless you're prepared to argue that one > two.

Click to expand...

I am not saying that bad calls don't happen but, as another poster pointed out, that call had nothing to do with the renewed "emphasis" of a few years earlier.

Bad calls are an unavoidable part of the game. A bad call is a bad call, whether it is throwing a flag on a clean play or not throwing the flag on what should have been an infraction.

The best QB's in the league are still going to be the best QB's in the league. The best defenses in the league are still going to be the best defenses. I know you paranoid homers want to delude yourselves into thinking this is all one giant conspiracy to help Manning and hurt the Patriots but last time I checked, we had a pretty decent guy under center as well who will benefit as much as anyone else from a renewed emphasis on illegal contact.

All the whining in this forum is better suited for an Oakland Raiders group. You'd feel quite at home there no doubt.

SB39 said:

Your memory apparently doesn't serve you as well as mine does me. The year before the last coverage rules emphasis, we went 14-2 and won the Super Bowl. The year after the last coverage rules emphasis, we went 14-2 and won the Super Bowl.

I'm not really seeing how 14-2 and winning the Super Bowl is much better than 14-2 and winning the Super Bowl.

Click to expand...

Because you are totally ignoring the superbowl two years previously where they won due in good part to their ability to play defense in that style. Plus if you go back through Belichick's history with the Giants he won at least one other superbowl playing that style. I think only someone being painfully obtuse wouldn't recognize the fact that Belichick has had much more success in the playoffs when his team is able to play a physical style. This isn't whining its just recognizing reality. Personally, I don't think this emphasis is going to last into the playoffs so I am not particularly worried.

PatsWickedPissah said:

Precisely!
It boggles the mind as to what positive gain will come from increasing the % of plays affected by subjective instantaneous judgement calls.

Click to expand...

What's good for Peyton is good for the NFL!/Roger Goodell

Patriot Missile said:

I had mentioned a response to Ken earlier. They start over penalizing this and your gonna see flopping by the Wr's to beg for calls. It's a big turnoff in the NBA as well as soccer. The NFL should tread carefully with this one. Also if they think they can use this judgement call to influence a game they better again tread carefully. The average NFL fan is not blind. They pick up on these things quickly and will turn in a heartbeat if they think the product is being tampered with.

Click to expand...

Not only do I agree with this, but I think it's already happening. Part of the reason why I don't like Eric Decker is because he begs for calls at least as badly as anyone in the NBA.